Here are some questions to ask Evolutionists. These questions remain unanswered.

Questions Evolutionists Cannot Answer:

Can you name one thing about Evolution that you can unequivocally say is certainly true, and how do you know that it is true? (You may get an answer, but press hard on getting to the bottom of the follow up question, "How do you know that it is true?" This could take hours, and you will find that the Evolutionist goes circular or illogical after a while. There is nothing that can be known for certain about a lie except that it is a lie.)

How did the first life originate? How did life appear spontaneously? What were the specific mechanisms and steps?

How did the DNA code originate?

What evidence would it take to convince you that Evolution is false? (This is a trick question designed to make the Evolutionist realized the difference between Evolutionism's claims and operational science. Actually, it is impossible to prove a universal negative. It is impossible to prove, for instance, that no information has ever been added to anything by random processes. The adding of information by random processes would, of course, be necessary to Evolutionism. However, no one can prove that it never happened anywhere at any time. We only know that there is no record of anyone ever observing it happening and that a lot of money and time has been spent trying to observe it happening. (Read Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.

They may come up with an answer that sounds as if Evolution could be shown false, but that no such evidence exists. There are two routes that this has gone in the past. The first and most frequently used is to actually give a specific answer such as "finding a rabbit in pre-Cambrian rocks." History shows that Evolutionism simply adjusts its doctrine to accommodate such surprises or else this superstition just explains away evidence that is inconvenient. The other way this has been handled in the past is to make a statement that is so general that it cannot possibly be met as in this quote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." ~ Charles Darwin Sounds good, but it is a statement designed to make the theory untestable. ""How could it be proved that something could not possibly have been formed by a process specified no more fully than as a process of 'numerous, successive, slight modifications'? And why should the critic [of evolution] have to prove any such thing? The burden is on Darwin and his defenders to demonstrate that at least some complex organs we find in nature really can possibly be formed in this way, that is, by some specific, fully articulated series of slight modifications." ~ Robert Koons [source: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.04.Five_Questions_Ev.pdf

How could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?

What are some examples of information being added to a genome through mutations? (Evolutionists are taught that there are many examples. In fact, every example that they give is an example of information lost or else information that was already in a genome. Know your facts about these false claims.)

Why is the word, selection used in natural selection when selection implies an intelligent selector, then, when challenged, Evolutionists claim that selection is a euphemism? Natural Selection would be better termed "Natural Elimination" because all Natural Selection can do is eliminate mutations that are bad enough that they create a survival problem. Natural Selection has no method of adding information to anything, which would be absolutely necessary if Evolution were to be a viable theory. Mutation never adds information. (Evolution needs an intelligence and the phrase, natural selection, is a lie that gives the illusion of intelligence. When the Evolutionist is caught in this lie, they retreat quickly, but still maintain that Evolution happens. In scientific articles, natural selection is turned into a magic god all the time. It is, in fact, a substitute for the Real, Almighty, Creator God. It is an idol constructed in the minds of Evolutionists because they don't like the Real God. We cannot see a selection process, but we can see a somewhat fuzzy elimination process. If there is any selection, it only selects by elimination and it only eliminates what is already in the gene pool.)

If SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence project, presumes to be be able to recognize intelligence should it ever find any from outer space, and in areas of science such as archeology, forensics, and cryptography, then why do you dismiss the idea of detecting the design of biological systems without giving the matter any serious thought? (listen for a double standard in their response. Listen for religious arguments such as "Evolution is science.")

Why is natural selection taught as Evolution as if it explains the diversity of life? (Selection is a process that selects from what is already there. Logically, it could potentially explain why some living things survive in certain environments while others do not. It cannot explain how the genes and living things got there.)

How did the nano-machines in the cells originate? (They may try to assert that natural selection, the magic wand of Evolutionism, is able to create any type of complex structure. Don't let them get away with general answers. Specifically how? If it were science, then they would know how and be able to reproduce it and observe it. Focus on each detail of each machine and ask specifically how that could have evolved and survived as it was evolving. Anyone who knows anything about these sub-miniature machines and how they intelligently operate cannot pass them off lightly as having "happened" by chance. Without these complex, designed nano-machines, everything dies.)

How did the biochemical pathways originate? (These are extremely complex, involving many enzymes working together in a very designed fashion, and, if they don't work in this way, everything dies.)

Since all living things look like they were designed, what makes you so sure that they are not designed? (They may pretend this is a dead issue. It is not. They may try to place natural selection as the designer, but nature has no power to choose, much less to design and build new things that work. Especially not complex things! Natural selection can explain adaptations, which are initiated by information already in the cell.)

How did living things make the jump from single-celled to multi-celled forms and why is there no fossil record of this at all?

How could one type of living thing turn into another type without leaving a record in the fossils?

Since asexual reproduction is more than twice as efficient as sexual reproduction, how and why did sexual reproduction evolve?

How did living things know how to reproduce themselves?

If Evolution were valid, there should be a countless number, millions or billions of transitional fossils. Why are they missing and why is there not one indisputable example of a transitional form? (Lining up similar looking fossils does not prove that one turned into the other any more than lining up kitchen utensils proves that one turned into the other over time. There should be millions between them. There are quite a few false examples, but these are presented something like this: "We have fossils. We can make up creative stories about these fossils. These scientific facts [the creative stories] we see many transitional forms." Keep in mind that the ability to adapt, which is designed into genomes, is not Evolution in the sense of Darwinism. For example: from the dogs that came off of the ark, all the various breeds of dogs and probably foxes, wolves, etc. developed because of this marvelous ability to adapt. That is proof of a great Creator God, not Evolution. If they say that those fossils just have not yet been found, this is wishful thinking of the highest order. It certainly is not logic or science.)

"What makes the question complex is that in place of the countless thousands of transitional forms expected (as Darwin logically indicated should be found, and anticipated would be found in future), there exists at any point in time a handful of candidates, i.e. fossils put forward as transitional forms by evolutionary proponents. [Note: By 'transitional forms' is meant here fossils showing intermediate stages between major evolutionary transitions, i.e. from one kind of creature to a wholly different kind. For example, stages in the supposed transition of a walking reptile to a flying bird, nothing which creationists could regard as variation/speciation within a kind. Some evolutionists argue that we have countless thousands of transitional fossils, but they empty the term 'transitional fossil' of any content really meaningful for the creation-evolution debate. They define a fossil as 'transitional' in the same sense that a car is 'transitional' between a unicycle and a truck. That is not in view here.] Creationists by definition would argue that there are none, so to evolutionists this is seen as 'proof'. From a creation perspective, though, consider the following:" Go to http://creation.com/missing-links-parade for the rest of this article.

Why are there "living fossils?"

(For those Atheists who believe that everything that exists is material, that everything that exists is part of the physical world) How do you deal with the fact that the laws of logic are not physical? The Atheistic worldview eliminates the possibility of logic being real or reliable. At the same time, Atheists try to use logic to reason. When they do so, they are demonstrating that their worldview is not internally consistent and that their worldview is not valid. (see Atheist's answers)

How do you deal with the fact that mind, intelligence, meaning, altruism, and morality are not physical?

Why do Evolutionist's scientific journals allow Evolutionists to get away with creative story telling that is presented as if it were science? (When Evolutionists find evidence that clearly refutes Evolution, they resort to story-telling. In order to explain the fossils, they tell stories about the fossils. Using these guidelines, there is no evidence that could possibly falsify Evolution, since it is possible to make up a story about anything and come to any conclusion--in this case, the conclusion is that Evolution is still valid despite the evidence to the contrary.)

What specific scientific progress has been made due to Evolution? (There are no legitimate examples except in the science of defending Evolution. Evolution actually slows the progress of science by burning up resources uselessly.)

Since operational science is a process of repeated experimentation and observation about things in the present, why is Evolution, a hypothesis about history which no one, taught as if it had the same validity as operational science? (Evolutionists may respond that Evolution has been observed. Ask them how it has been observed. Have they personally observed it? Who has observed it? Where? Get the details. Then, check out their stories and you will find that it has not been observed.)

Since Evolutionism is a religious dogma that doesn't match the evidence, why is it taught in science classes?

What could make it impossible for Almighty God to create the universe and everything in it in six days? (You will probably get an answer to this, but it will be based in emotion and rationalization rather than fact. Study and know the types of answers you are likely to get and find out why they are false before you enter into this type of conversation.)

If the only answer to the question above is emotional and rationalization, then why take such a dogmatic view against the Almighty Creator God?What makes you believe in Evolution? (You will get an answer to this, but the position is not defensible from a logical standpoint. If you keep asking for the basis of the reasoning and the basis for the basis, you will find that the Evolutionist cannot support the dogma of Evolution logically. They will cut off the conversation, go into a circular loop, or admit that they have no basis. By the way, even if they admit that they are just making it all up, don't expect them to change their strong opinion. They reason for the dogmatic opinion is stated clearly in Romans 1.)

Have you personally seen any evidence of Evolution? (You may get an answer, but probe and you will find that the answer is missing any substance. The reality is, that they have not personally seen any evidence of Evolution, because there is none. Of course, you must realize that evidence does not consist of a bunch of creative stories. Lies are not proof of anything.)

You may want to ask the following questions just to get the Evolutionist to think:

Is Evolution just what you choose to believe just because you want it to be true? (An honest Evolutionist may tell you, "Yes." Most Evolutionists bowed to peer pressure in the beginning What is your motivation for wanting Evolution to be fact?

Even if a complete story of evolution could be made up that did not conflict with any proven scientific data, would that make the story true or just a better lie?

How could intelligence and mind develop in the light of the second law of thermodynamics, which would deny such development?

By the way, every tale of evolution does conflict with proven data. Evolution isn't science. But if someone were able to make up such a lie, the lie would still be a lie. Anyone can make up a rational-lies-zation, but evidence, that's something else. If rational-lies-zations were evidence, then anything could be proved because anything can be rationalized.

The Evolutionists will often tell you a half truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Evolutionists will tell the half truth: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it's not relevant to evolution, because the Earth is an open system." This is a clever lie. Here is the part of the truth that they are withholding: the Second Law of Thermodynamics was derived using theoretical isolated systems, but it applies to all systems, and can only be overcome locally and temporarily in open systems when stringent conditions are met. Not only that, but we are not talking about the Earth. The Earth is just a subsystem of a much larger system called the Universe. The Universe is an isolated system. Evolutionists claim that Evolution took place in this isolated system, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that their story is a myth.

Prepare yourself and be a spreader of Good News. All of this is for the purpose of opening the door so that people can find Christ. Evolutionism binds people and holds them in bondage so they cannot find Christ in a real way. You can be used by God to set them free. Go here for more resources.

Natural Selection is real and it works to eliminate severe mutations, although Natural Selection can mean different things depending on the context in which it is used. Some of those contexts actually try to transform Natural Selection into Evolution. At other times, Natural Selection is written about as if it were an intelligent all-powerful god that thinks things through and does them. But Natural Selection as a description of the way that severe mutations result in the death of the mutated life form is real. It can't add information and it appears that mutation never adds any information either. At least, no one has ever been able to observe information being added despite many tax dollars trying to do so. Most mutations aren't detrimental enough, however, for Natural Selection to operate. Small mutations can build up in a population over time and cause extinction. It is illegitimate to use Natural Selection to support Evolution. Natural Selection supports a young Earth and a Creator.

Ungodly people are forced to hold on tightly to some basic presuppositions. These presuppositions are just simple-minded assumptions. They are filters and a way to censor out any information that supports the existence of God. They set up a web of rules to filter out God. They will only accept those things that conform to Naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism. Naturalism claims that God does nothing. Materialism claims that there is no God or spiritual realm. Uniformitarianism claims that there was not creation and that there was no violent worldwide flood, as the Bible and numerous other historical accounts record. Whatever they observe that does not conform to this complex filter is censored. The way that it is censored can take several forms. The ungodly may boldly proclaim that, though the data appears to support God's version and refute the version of the ungodly, yet it still must be interpreted to mean just the opposite of what it does mean. A backup method that ungodly people use is to prophecy that in the future, science will be able to explain what they see as an anomaly. If that fails, they will hide the data, set it aside, or lie to keep the public from knowing the truth. The data clearly demolishes the story of the ungodly and clearly supports the reality of the Creator God, His Bible, and His abiding Presence in His people. When confronted with the obvious, a closed-minded ungodly person says, "I can't understand it." They are willingly ignorant because they refuse to hold God in their knowledge. The reality is that these people, for whatever reason, don't what to know the Creator. They don't want to truly know Jesus, their Creator.

Geology, the Flood, the Ice Age and the age of the earth

We need to avoid speculation. God forbids speculation. If a scientist goes beyond the actual facts, he or she must think, speak, and write about this speculation in terms that make it obvious that these are simply speculations. Speculation is not knowledge. It is speculation.